Wildlife Promise » Joe Mendelsonhttp://blog.nwf.org
The National Wildlife Federation's blogFri, 31 Jul 2015 19:00:24 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.3The Public Is Speaking: Action on Climate Change Nowhttp://blog.nwf.org/2012/11/the-public-is-speaking-action-on-climate-change-now/
http://blog.nwf.org/2012/11/the-public-is-speaking-action-on-climate-change-now/#commentsThu, 15 Nov 2012 15:05:14 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=70670New NWF post-election polling shows that the realignment of our politics around the issue of climate continues to gain steam. Conducted by Zogby Analytics, the new polling shows that as more and more Americans see the impacts of climate-fueled extreme weather hitting close to home, their concern over the issue of climate change continues to grow. And with that rise in concern, it is clear that voters of political stripes expect their elected officials to act now to address the climate crisis.

Climate Had a Role in Superstorm Sandy

Q: Do you think climate change is adding to the severity of recent extreme weather such as Superstorm Sandy and the summer droughts?

57.2% Yes 27.9% No 14.8% Not Sure

Deeper Dive: Superstorm Sandy impacted the public across the country not just in the Northeast. At least 54% responded “Yes” in each region of the country (East, South, Central/Great Lakes & West). According to veteran pollster John Zogby:

These results show the dramatic impact 2012′s extreme weather has had across party lines, with half of Republicans, 73 percent of independents and 82 percent of Democrats saying they’re worried about the growing cost and risks of extreme weather disasters fueled by climate change. It’s a major change from our December 2009 poll, which showed two-thirds of Republicans and nearly half of political independents saying they were ‘not at all concerned’ about global climate change and global warming. The political climate has shifted and members of Congress need to catch up with their constituents.

69% Concerned Over Costs & Risks of Climate Change

Aerial views of the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy to the New Jersey coast (U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Mark C. Olsen).

Q: Are you worried about the growing cost and risks of extreme weather disasters fueled by climate change?

22.3% I am worried a great deal

46.7% I am somewhat worried

15.9% I am not very worried

11.3% I am not worried at all

3.8% Not sure

Deeper Dive: Concern over climate fueled extreme weather spans the political spectrum. 58% of those sympathetic to the Tea Party are greatly or somewhat concerned about climate change. 82% of those sympathetic to Occupy Wall Street are concerned.

More Than 65% Want Elected Officials to Act Now to Address Climate Change

Q: Do you believe elected officials should take steps now to reduce the impact of climate change on future generations, or wait until there is more evidence?

65.3% Take steps now

27.3% Wait until there is more evidence

7.3% Not sure

Deeper Dive: The call for action from elected officials spans across all generations. 74% of those in the age group 18-29 say take steps now; 68% in the age group 30-39 want action; 64% of those between 50-64 years old want action; and 52% of 65+ say take steps now.

Don’t Roll Back the Clean Air Act

Q: Which of the following proposals offered by candidates do you think should be the highest priority to help solve America’s energy challenges?

A: When given a number of choices, only 3.5% wanted to “relax clean air standards to promote more electricity from coal.”

Deeper Dive: In comparison, 38% want political leaders to do more to encourage the development of renewable forms of energy like wind and solar power. This choice had more than double the support of any other choice.

Voters Are Tired of Polluters Trying to Influence Elections

courtesy oliveventures.com

Q: How concerned are you that political donations by oil, gas and coal industries are influencing politicians in Washington to approve policies that benefit their corporations?

41.7% Very concerned

35.1% Somewhat concerned

14.2% Not very concerned

4.6% Not at all concerned

4.5% Not sure

Deeper Dive: The concern over polluter contributions spans the political spectrum. 81% of Democrats, 70% of Republicans and 77% of independents are very/somewhat concerned about the role of polluter money in campaigns.

Ignoring the Call for Climate Leadership

The polling results as a whole continue to show that a failure to lead or take action on climate will put political leaders at odds with the public. And while this is true across the political spectrum, after the election some political leaders are not getting the message.

House Majority Leader John Boehner has once again decided to hide behind the phony debate over climate science. Responding to question about climate he said:

“I don’t think there’s any doubt that we’ve had climate change over the last 100 years. What has initiated it, though, has sparked a debate that’s gone on now for the last 10 years. I don’t think we’re any closer to the answer than we were 10 years ago.”

Similarly, House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton was asked whether he would consider a carbon tax as part of the fiscal cliff negotiations and responded, “I don’t like the idea.” Let’s remember that Congressman Upton has also opposed the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade legislation and last Congress led legislative efforts in the House to strip the EPA of its authority under the Clean Air Act to deal with carbon pollution. All of which means that the Congressman is running out of options to support that will actually tackle the climate problem.

This lack of leadership on climate is woefully out of alignment with where voters are after Superstorm Sandy and the recent election. It is past time for of our elected officials of all strips to look to the future: whether for the sake of addressing the growing impacts of climate change or even if it is for their own political future.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2012/11/the-public-is-speaking-action-on-climate-change-now/feed/2After the Election: Climate Change Will Head to Top of the Agendahttp://blog.nwf.org/2012/11/after-the-election-climate-change-will-head-to-top-of-the-agenda/
http://blog.nwf.org/2012/11/after-the-election-climate-change-will-head-to-top-of-the-agenda/#commentsThu, 08 Nov 2012 17:08:34 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=70149The election is over—now what on the climate change issue? Hurricane Sandy, the nation’s fiscal situation, and the election results have combined to create three key things that I think compel Congress to action on climate change.

1. Climate Change Impacts are Costing the Federal Government Too Much Money

Rockaway, New York on Nov. 1, 2012. Photo by Walt Jennings/FEMA.gov

Congress returns in mid-November to the fiscal cliff debate. Hurricane Sandy should put the issue of climate change squarely within this discussion. Sandy’s estimated costs are $10–$20 billion in insured losses with at least another $50 billion in economic damages. The $12 billion in government money set aside for disaster relief this year will be easily gobbled up in the recovery. Congress will be forced to seek additional money to help effected citizens. The federal price tag for the recovery from Hurricane Katrina reached $120 billion. Sandy may not reach that total, but the amount of federal money spent on the relief will be significant.

Hurricane Sandy, however, is only one piece of the climate impact puzzle. This year the country has also experienced record drought, widespread wildfires, and the worst West Nile virus outbreak ever. Munich Re put the cost of the first six months of 2012’s extreme weather events at over $14.5 billion. All of these impacts have required a federal government response. Lawmakers sought $800 million in additional funds this year to deal with wildfires and new legislation for over $300 million in drought assistance to livestock producers hit by the drought is expected soon.

But wait there is more. Sandy has shown that the country needs a crash course in preparing for and adapting to the changes and impacts that will occur in the future (read NWF’s prescription here). This is not cheap. For example, Norfolk, VA—home of Naval Station Norfolk and on the frontline of climate impacts—has a comprehensive adaptation plan that will cost about $1 billion. This is roughly twice the city’s entire annual budget and cannot be undertaken without federal dollars.

So, if we are serious about addressing the federal budget crisis, lawmakers need to look at the exploding costs of climate change impacts and how much it will take to better prepare for such events.

The choice Congress will face is who picks up the tab.

The past failure to put price on carbon pollution means that the costs of dealing with these “externalities” (read: impacts) have never been borne by the polluters. Instead, the federal government and taxpayers like you and me foot the bill. The looming fiscal crisis and the costs of climate change demand this equation be changed.

We want our children to live in an America that isn’t burdened by debt, that isn’t weakened by inequality, that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet. President Obama, 2012 victory speech

2. Big Oil and King Coal’s Money Play Was A Costly Failure

Early last year the political punditry predicted a significant loss in the Senate for a number of Senators that voted to support using the Clean Air Act to limit the carbon pollution causing climate change. Big polluters sought to make this a reality with enormous campaign expenditures through independent entities like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads. Together, just these two organizations funneled over $31 million into the Senate races against candidates that hold key votes in preserving the Clean Air Act during the next Congress. Guess what? The polluter attempt to buy the election failed miserably.

Let’s take a deeper dive. A key moment in the last Congress was a vote on a Senate amendment to a small business bill that would have rolled back the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to fight climate using the Clean Air Act. The amendment failed. Cross referencing some of the key votes that fought to defeat the climate rollback amendment with the new election results reveals that the millions of polluter dollars did not alter the political equation. This holds true across the whole map of the recent Senate elections. Tuesday night’s results actually weakened the polluters’ political hand on climate and the Clean Air Act. The results mean politicians don’t have to be afraid of Big Oil and King Coal and it’s time to move forward.

*Sen. Casey’s opponent, a coal company executive, self-financed his campaign with over $17M. All figures from OpenSecrets.org

3. Poll After Poll Shows the Public Increasingly Wants Action on Climate Change

Additionally, the future for politicians that have spent their time on the fossil fuel dole and opposing action to address climate change does not look so, pardon the pun, hot. Polling undertaken before Hurricane Sandy has shown that the public attitude toward taking action on climate on the significant upswing. Three recent examples:

Yale’s September poll finding that 70% of Americans see global warming as a reality that is occurring. This number is up 13% since January 2010 and those who do not see climate change as occurring declining to a low of 12%.

NWF’s September poll of sportsmen finding 66% in agreement with the statement that “We have a moral responsibility to confront global warming to protect our children’s future.”

Kaiser Foundation Foundation/Washington Post poll in August finding that 74% support government action to “regulate” the climate changing air pollution that is emitted from power plants, cars and factories. The support was bi-partisan with 87% of Democrats, 73% of Independents and 61% of Republicans in support.

It’s safe to say after witnessing the suffering of millions from the aftermath of Sandy these numbers will only continue to rise.

The Bottom Line

All of these factors lead to the cumulative conclusion that members of the next Congress must address the climate crisis soon or risk their political well-being. Simply put:

The nation can no longer afford to bail out polluters and foot the bill. Putting a price on carbon pollution will help the fiscal state of the country, drive adoption of clean energy technologies, and place the responsibility of paying for climate change damages on those that cause the problem;

Counting on Big Polluter campaign money to win you an election will not succeed and it will not overcome the public’s desire to vote for those that will protect our families, homes, and communities from the ravages of climate change; and

Politicians that step forward to provide leadership in addressing climate change and its impacts will be meeting the expectations of the electorate and rewarded in 2014.

Whatever happens on November 6th, the tragic scenes unfolding across the 19 states impacted by Superstorm Sandy have realigned American politics when it comes to climate change.

The road to Election Day has gone from sarcastic remarks in Tampa, to two debate moderators apologizing for not asking the climate change question, to Republican standard bearer Gov. Chris Christie touring his devastated home state with President Obama, to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg penning an op-ed declaring that action on climate change is the central electoral issue.

Pundits like Politico’s Mike Allen have now given voice to what many strategists are already saying. Sandy and climate change may have changed the campaign’s ultimate outcome.

Sandy has also brought into focus that politicians risk their well-being when the impacts of climate change are ignored. The year 2012 has seen record drought throughout the Midwest, heat waves scalding our cities, the nation’s largest outbreak of West Nile Virus and wildfires torching homes and millions of acres. All of these events hit the electorate at the personal level impacting families, property and communities.

Poll after poll has shown the public awaking to climate change’s role in exacerbating and accelerating all of these impacts. Combined with the steady and expanding stream of images of Sandy’s destruction, these impacts and events take the nation to Katrina 2.0. So whatever the outcome next Tuesday, the person sitting in the Oval Office will have to act to address the unfolding climate crisis because we all know the next extreme weather event is just around the corner.

Before you vote next week, you can send a message to the candidates that you want them to talk about climate change and protect wildlife. Take action here.

Arctic sea ice on which polar bears depend has already set a record low this summer, and is still diminishing;

Backyard activities threatened by a record outbreak of health-threatening West Nile virus.

Even before this summer of extreme weather, 82% of Americans had said that they have personally experienced one or more types of extreme weather or a natural disaster in the past year and 35 percent say that they were personally harmed by these extreme weather events in the past year. And as harmful and devastating as all of these impacts have been, they also represent a poignant warning that these problems and impacts will escalate in the future unless we begin to tackle the climate change crisis.

This is why the recent words of President Obama at the Democratic National Convention should resonate so loudly through all of our political discourse, and why, beyond words, political action is so critical, something both parties have yet to fully embrace.

And yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet – because climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They’re a threat to our children’s future – President Obama, Sept. 6, 2012

Regardless of party and electoral politics, addressing climate change speaks to values all of us hold – leaving our children an environment and world that is better off than we inherited.

The depth of this widespread value across all political persuasions is revealed in a new Kaiser Family Foundation poll (see Question #36). The poll found that government action to “regulate” the climate changing air pollution that is emitted from power plants, cars and factories is supported by 87% of Democrats, 73% of Independents and 61% of Republicans. Such numbers show that dealing with the future of climate change is actually one issue where we can all come together as a nation.

The message to our political leaders is clear. The time for fake debates over climate science or simply disregarding the facts of this summer’s extreme weather is over. The real question all of us want answered is: what is your plan to tackle climate change for the sake of my family and the generations that follow?

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2012/09/climate-question-should-be-center-stage/feed/4West Nile Virus and Paying for Preventionhttp://blog.nwf.org/2012/08/west-nile-virus-and-paying-for-prevention/
http://blog.nwf.org/2012/08/west-nile-virus-and-paying-for-prevention/#commentsThu, 30 Aug 2012 15:35:59 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=65629Like many across the country, I enjoy gardening and yard work during the summer. Mosquito attacks, however, have a way of diminishing the fun. Last weekend, I was out in the backyard trimming some bushes when I felt “the bite” – a nasty one going for some blood from my leg. When I looked down, there was a ravenous swarm. Let me clear. I do not have any irrational fear of bugs, it’s been dry as all get out in my neck of the ‘burbs, and I make sure to rid my yard of all standing water. No matter . . . it was feasting time and I was on the menu.

As NWF’s new report Ruined Summer: Carbon Pollution’s Extreme Toll on Summerhighlights, there can be another serious aspect to these attacks: West Nile virus. Transmitted by mosquitoes to humans, the Center for Disease Control says West Nile virus can cause severe symptoms, including permanent neurological effects, in 1 out of every 150 persons infected. And about 20 percent of those infected have significant symptoms like fever, headache and nausea for days. (Click here for an excellent info graphic on how West Nile virus is transmitted).

The Climate Change Link

The first time the virus was detected in the Western Hemisphere was a New York City outbreak in 1999. More recent climate change science indicates that this was just the start of a problem that will increasingly plague our backyards. As climate scientists stated in 2007:

The strain of West Nile virus (WNV) that emerged for the first time in North America during the record hot July 1999 requires warmer temperatures than other strains. The greatest WNV transmissions during the epidemic summers of 2002 to 2004 in the U.S. were linked to above-average temperatures. Laboratory studies of virus replication in WNV’s main Culex mosquito vector show high levels of virus at warmer temperatures.

The fact that the worst US West Nile epidemic in history happens to be occurring during what will likely prove to be the hottest summer on record doesn’t surprise epidemiologists. They have been predicting the effects of climate change on West Nile for over a decade. If they’re right, the US is only headed for worse epidemics.

The Cost of West Nile Virus and Who Pays

On the individual level you can protect yourself from West Nile virus by using an insecticide—like DEET (doesn’t sound appealing)—and trying to deal with mosquitoes in your yard (read the CDC’s prevention Q& A here). But there are broader attempts to deal with this public health issue and they highlight the building costs of climate change.

One attempt to deal with the outbreak is aerial spraying to control mosquitoes (maybe even more unappealing). On a recent CDC press call, the Texas State Health Commissioner discussed Dallas County efforts on such a plan. He stated that the aerial spraying is costing close to $3 million and is paid for from federal and state public health and emergency preparedness funds—i.e. you and me the taxpayers.

Even broader prevention efforts to address the growing West Nile virus threat are underway and focus on vaccination. If successful, it won’t be cheap. One study has estimated that the average cost per case prevented with a vaccine would be around $34,200, and it would cost of $8.7 billion over ten years to vaccinate 100 million people. While there would be a significant benefit in reducing overall healthcare costs by reducing the number of cases of West Nile, I’m pretty sure if we go down this road much of the vaccination cost will be picked up through various federal and state health insurance and public health programs funded by our tax dollars.

Guess who won’t be picking up the tab? The polluters – big oil and coal companies whose products fuel climate change and play a leading role in the West Nile Virus equation end up not paying a cent. According to a recent Center for American Progress analysis Exxon and Shell turn a $160,000 of profit every minute.This means that in less than twenty minutes these two oil companies make enough in profits to pay for the Dallas aerial spray program costs being that are being footed by the nation’s taxpayers.

Take Action

In dealing with public health threats the best and most cost-effective policy is prevention, and the broadest West Nile virus preventative step we can take is limiting the carbon pollution that is causing climate change. And without a putting price on carbon pollution we end up with the current situation where the individual slathers on the DEET, lives under the aerial spray cloud, and the polluters contributing to the problem pay nothing.

UPDATE: Washington Post reports: As of September 4th, a total of 1,993 cases nationwide, including 87 deaths, had been reported to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a 25 percent increase in the number of cases and a 32 percent increase in deaths from the previous week.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2012/08/west-nile-virus-and-paying-for-prevention/feed/3Drought and the Climate Change Freeloadershttp://blog.nwf.org/2012/08/drought-and-the-climate-change-freeloaders/
http://blog.nwf.org/2012/08/drought-and-the-climate-change-freeloaders/#commentsTue, 07 Aug 2012 14:06:33 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=64747By now our news media has probably made you aware of the historic drought that is gripping the country. Almost 80 percent of the nation’s agricultural land is experiencing drought conditions not seen since the 1950’s. In mid-July, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimated this year’s corn harvest will drop by 12% and food prices for all of us will start to rise. But hardly anyone is connecting the dots to the fossil fuel producers who pollute our atmosphere, bank record profits, and pay none of the costs of climate change.

The drought is the latest manifestation of the extreme weather that is gripping the U.S. and placing a striking economic toll on our country. And as pre-eminent NASA climate scientist James Hansen has recently stated (and backed up with peer review science):

Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change. To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change (watch Dr. Hansen explain here).

Rising Costs to All of Us

The costs to all of us resulting from the drought and other extreme weather (watch extreme weather video) continue to mount. Consider some of these numbers:

Climate Change Free Loaders

What should strike all of us is how these rapidly escalating costs are shining a spotlighting on our country’s major free rider problem. In economics, a free rider is someone who enjoys the benefits of an activity without paying for it. When it comes to the extreme weather costs of climate change, fossil fuel producers are the poster children for the free ride.

What is more, these fossil fuels are extracted at below market prices. A recent report highlights that below market leases for coal extraction from public lands has cost the U.S. Treasury approximately $28.9 billion in lost revenue over the last 30 years. And of course this doesn’t include the non-market cost to our government for dealing with the impacts of climate change when it hits home.

So let’s be clear when we look at the costs and consequences of extreme weather. Right now, families at the dinner table, farmers, insurance companies, and the fiscal solvency of the country are all paying for the costs of climate change and extreme weather. Those who produce and sell the fossil fuels that result in carbon pollution being dumped into our atmosphere like an open sewer, cause the extreme weather, and drain our wallets are shouldering zero, zip, nada responsibility for the costs they are creating.

Take Action

It is time to end the carbon polluter freeloading. The current situation should make the case for putting a price on carbon clear and out in the open. Look at the simple math. A one-time, $1 climate change impacts surcharge for each barrel of oil or ton of coal extracted from our public lands in 2011 (just one fiscal year!) would yielded over $1B in revenue. That certainly isn’t chicken feed and beats slashing agriculture conservation programs by $383M to help drought stricken ranchers.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2012/08/drought-and-the-climate-change-freeloaders/feed/6Climate Change Becoming A Broken Recordhttp://blog.nwf.org/2012/07/climate-change-becoming-a-broken-record/
http://blog.nwf.org/2012/07/climate-change-becoming-a-broken-record/#commentsMon, 09 Jul 2012 20:39:25 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=63083Just today, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released its report on U.S. climate highlights for June. The following are some key findings taken directly from the summary:

The January-June period was the warmest first half of any year on record for the contiguous United States. The national temperature of 52.9°F was 4.5°F above the 20th century average. Most of the contiguous U.S. was record and near-record warm for the six-month period, except the Pacific Northwest. Twenty-eight states east of the Rockies were record warm and an additional 15 states were top ten warm.

Record Setting Drought

According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, as of July 3, 56.0% of the contiguous U.S. experienced drought conditions, marking the largest percentage of the nation experiencing drought conditions in the 12-year record of the U.S. Drought Monitor. Drought conditions improved across Florida, due to the rains from Tropical Storm Debby. Drought conditions worsened across much of the West, Central Plains, and the Ohio Valley, causing significant impacts on agriculture in those regions.

Record Setting Wildfires

Several large wildfires raged across the West in June, destroying hundreds of homes and causing the evacuation of tens of thousands of residences. The very dry, warm, and windy weather created ideal wildfire conditions. Nationwide, wildfires scorched over 1.3 million acres, the second most on record during June.

Putting it all together, NOAA reports:

The U.S. Climate Extremes Index (USCEI), an index that tracks the highest and lowest 10 percent of extremes in temperature, precipitation, drought and tropical cyclones across the contiguous U.S., was a record-large 44 percent during the January-June period, over twice the average value. Extremes in warm daytime temperatures (83 percent) and warm nighttime temperatures (70 percent) covered large areas of the nation, contributing to the record high value.

Taking Action to Stop the Record Breaking

While well over 2.1 million people have already written in to support the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed carbon pollution standards for new power plants, we still need to tell Congress to take action to tackle the impacts of climate change that threatens our communities, homes, families, and wildlife.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2012/07/climate-change-becoming-a-broken-record/feed/3Bryce Harper’s Unusual Hit Speaks to Climate Change Impactshttp://blog.nwf.org/2012/06/bryce-harpers-unusual-hit-speaks-to-climate-change-impacts/
http://blog.nwf.org/2012/06/bryce-harpers-unusual-hit-speaks-to-climate-change-impacts/#commentsMon, 04 Jun 2012 19:05:44 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=59366Climate change is often a subtle devil. While in 2011 we witnessed $35 billion in insured losses from climate change-fueled extreme weather, many of the other impacts progress incrementally each year until they accumulate enough to be noticed, or even worse, we start accepting them as the everyday norm. And sometimes an innocuous event can provide a window into how climate change is already impacting the everyday in ways we don’t even think about.

A recent hit by young Washington Nationals’ star Bryce Harper may foretell some everyday effects of climate change. (Photo by MissChatter/Flickr)

One Remarkable Play

Take baseball. Two weekends ago, one window into climate change impacts opened up in Atlanta. During a 8-4 victory, Nationals rookie phenom Bryce Harper hit an apparently ordinary single into right field against the Braves. Harper, however, hustled around first base as an unsuspecting and nonchalant Jason Heyward mishandled the ball. Harper roared into second with a double–a highlight reel play. Great play by the kid, but what could this possibly have to do with climate change?

In reviewing the play, Nationals’ announcer F.P. Santangelo talked about how the ball “snaked” (rolling in an unusual direction on the dry grass) on Heyward and caused him to misplay it. Other players like Miami’s Giancarlo Stanton have also complained of the ball “snaking” in the Atlanta outfield. Santangelo continued to explain that there are recurring grass problems at Turner Field as the grounds crew tries to deal with extreme weather in Atlanta.

What about Heyward’s play on the Harper single when he took extra base?

“I think the ball snaked on him and it popped up, and Harper just kept running, kept running with his head up. We’ve got it in the reports that this guy runs everything out – hard. We misplayed it, and you’ve got to give credit to Harper that he took second base on it.”Atlanta Manager, Fredi Gonzalez

Decreased water availability is very likely to affect the region’s economy as well as its natural systems. Increasing temperatures and longer periods between rainfall events coupled with increased demand for water will result in decreased water availability. The 2007 water shortage in the Atlanta area created serious conflicts between three states, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (which operates the dam at Lake Lanier), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is charged with protecting endangered species. Such competition for limited water supplies is expected to continue.

Not only does this extreme weather wreak havoc by causing baseballs to “snake” in the dry grass of Turner Field’s formerly verdant outfield, the hot and dry conditions that have been gripping Atlanta made the infield too dry and fast. As a result, this year the grounds crew replaced the entire infieldwith a different turf capable of dealing with the climate extremes and slowing down the ball. The ground crew chose a replacement turf grass called paspulum. Paspulum is drought-resistant turf grass–in fact, a 2008 special issue of Greenskeeper International (See p. 39) highlights that paspulum is a turf of choice for dealing with rising temperatures as golf course managers confront the new rigors of climate change.

A Call to Action

Even a simple baseball play can be viewed through the prism of climate change and the way it is forcing us to adapt our behavior, even in one of our of most beloved cultural institutions. Frankly, I’d have been happy if Bryce Harper had collected a single, the Nats won, and the Braves didn’t have to replace their entire infield. That said, the play served as a reminder that we need to take action on climate change now more than ever.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) just released proposed limits to the carbon pollution from new power plants. The new standards will, among other things, require new power plants to emit approximately 60% less of the carbon pollution that is contributing to climate change. Supporting these carbon pollution limits can help tackle the impacts of climate change that threaten to alter things like baseball and wildlife even more the in the future.

Today, over 20 National Wildlife Federation representatives from 13 states and numerous local supporters testified in Washington, DC, and Chicago, IL, in support of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed carbon pollution standards for new power plants. The new proposal would require new power plants to emit approximately 60% less carbon pollution than an average coal-fired power plant.

There has never been a more urgent time to stop the carbon pollution that is fueling climate change and ocean acidification. Each year, our nation’s power plants pump nearly 2.3B tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Global carbon pollution is increasing in record amounts – jumping by 6% over the last year. If this pollution path is not altered global temperatures will increase by at least 4 degrees C (7.2 degrees F) and potentially 6 degrees C (10.8 degrees F) by 2100. This current path also leaves wildlife and local communities on the frontlines experiencing the increasingly virulent impacts of climate change on a daily basis.

At the same time, communities across the country face a record number of climate change-fueled extreme weather events that are taking their toll on families and personal property. In 2011, the U.S. experienced over $35B worth of extreme weather losses. This property damage has left families homeless, destroyed critical infrastructure, and placed an immediate human cost on accelerating climate change. Without a national policy that begins to tackle carbon pollution these problems will accelerate in speed and force and may become unstoppable.

NWF Call for Action

It is for these very reasons that NWF’s affiliates passed a resolution in 2009 resolving that all new coal-fired power plants being built should be required to control their carbon pollution. EPA’s proposed rule does just that, sets a standard – regardless of fuel type – that says we can no longer indiscriminately pump carbon pollution into our skies, and ensures that as we modernize our power sector we do not saddle future generations with more high carbon polluting infrastructure that lasts for decades to come.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that NWF urges that if a new coal-fired power plant is constructed, it be required to capture and permanently store or sequester its carbon emissions upon startup, and achieve near zero carbon emissions within 10 years of start-up.

Importantly, EPA cannot stop there. Since 1999, I have been engaged in efforts to utilize the Clean Air Act to limit carbon pollution. One legal petition, numerous court rulings (including two Supreme Court rulings), and three presidents later we are now only tackling the first piece of the nation’s largest sector of carbon pollution. It has been over 12 years since my own efforts began. I have literally watched my two daughters grow up and close to 40B tons of uncontrolled power plant carbon pollution emitted during this time. We cannot delay additional efforts any longer and standards to control the carbon pollution from existing power plants must follow in short order. There is not only a legal obligation to do so, but also a moral duty to act. We cannot leave future generations wondering why we waited to take the next step.

Have Your Voice Heard

Join NWF in supporting these carbon pollution limits can help to tackle climate change that threatens our protects wildlife – like the Nothern Moose – for children’s future.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2012/05/nwf-voices-testify-in-support-of-epa-carbon-pollution-limits/feed/7Tackle Carbon Pollution: Save Pond Hockeyhttp://blog.nwf.org/2012/03/tackle-carbon-pollution-save-pond-hockey/
http://blog.nwf.org/2012/03/tackle-carbon-pollution-save-pond-hockey/#commentsThu, 29 Mar 2012 19:11:50 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=51257A new NWF report: On Thin Ice: Warming Winters Put America’s Hunting and Fishing Heritage at Risk tells how this year’s winter that wasn’t has impacted hunters and anglers across America. I have another thing the non-winter has impacted: pond hockey – and a way you can help save it.

World Pond Hockey Championship (Photo by New Brunswick Tourism/Flickr)

For me pond hockey was a winter rite of passage and I have the scars to prove it. Sophomore year in high school we were playing hockey on a pond in Bassett Park (not the one by the band shell, the other one) and somehow Scott Ely’s skate caught me under the chin. We played on as we always did. The three stitches on my chin are a constant reminder of fond childhood memories.

Before Bassett Park, it was a small wetland (if you can call it that) next to the Rinaldo’s house. When shoveled off, its outline vaguely resembled Europe. There was always a grassy knoll or two where the puck would get hung up. We played for hours upon hours. I didn’t care if I couldn’t feel my toes. I was trying to be Gilbert Perreault (highlights here) leading the Buffalo Sabres to a Stanley Cup.

Climate Change Threat to Pond Hockey

Carbon pollution and climate change threatens to erase future generations’ ability to enjoy similar experiences. The fourth warmest winter in U.S. history has brought it home to places like Buffalo. NOAA found that the average temperature for February was 5.4 degrees above normal. How does this affect pond hockey? This is also what NOAA found:

The unusually warm temperatures also resulted in Lake Erie remaining open…with the lake temperature at 34 degrees on the [February] 29th . . . the same as at the end of January. The normal date of lake freeze is January 21st . . . placing us well past the normal date and suggesting a strong potential that this season could join the four other seasons where Lake Erie did not freeze.

The melting of the pond hockey heritage is not only occurring in Buffalo. A recent scientific study found that over the last 60 years climate change has steadily shortened the outdoor skating season in Canada. It also found that at the rate of global warming over the last 30 years, outdoor skating in Southwest Canada could disappear by mid-century. The study ominously concludes:

The ability to skate and play hockey outdoors is a critical component of Canadian identity and culture. Wayne Gretzky learned to skate on a backyard skating rink; our results imply that such opportunities may not available to future generations of Canadian children.

How You Can Help

Just as NWF’s new report speaks to the hunting and angling community, the state of pond hockey should be a call to action for all hockey fans. Fortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) just released proposed limits to the carbon pollution from new power plants that is contributing to climate change. The new proposal would, among other things, require new power plants to emit approximately 60% less carbon pollution than an average coal-fired power plant. Supporting these carbon pollution limits can help to tackle climate change that threatens to make the outdoor skating rink a distant memory.